Yesterday Obama attempted to change the subject from his incompetent, scandal-ridden administration by surrounding himself with college students — presumably those who voluntarily took on tens of thousands of dollars in debt to pursue an extended adolescence a useless degree program which will yield them few, if any, employment opportunities upon graduation — and promised them he would make their lives easier by making irresponsible debt accumulation temporarily less burdensome. This, according to Obama, is a "no-brainer" and would be paid for, naturally, by raising taxes yet again on the shrinking pool of Americans who still pay them. Obama, as is his custom, did nothing to address the root causes of sky-rocketing tuition, preferring instead to exacerbate the problem by convincing more unsuspecting high school kids to take on the debt necessary to fuel this increase.

Anyway, this is typical Obama and not particularly noteworthy. What piqued my interest was something he said about four minutes into his sermon. One thing I’ve learned over the past six years is that whenever he speaks, President Narcissus eventually gets around to the one topic which fascinates him like no other: himself. Yesterday was no exception:

“Michelle and I both went to college because of loans and grants and the work that we did. But I’ll be honest with you—now, I’m old, I’ve got to admit—when I got out of school, it took me about a year to pay off my entire undergraduate education. That was it. And I went to a private school. …

“Now, when I went to law school it was a different story. But that made sense because the idea was if you got a professional degree like a law degree, you would probably be able to pay it off. And so I didn’t feel sorry for myself or any lawyers who took on law school debt.

So, if I understand O correctly, his point is that we taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize the debts incurred by law school students — particularly law school students who attend the nation’s elite law schools like, say, Harvard or Georgetown — because when they graduate they can expect to earn beaucoup dollars and, thus, can pay their own bills. Is this a fair interpretation of Obama’s remarks? I think so. And assuming I’m correct, I have a question for our inestimable leader: Does this mean we shouldn’t subsidize $9 per month birth control pills for third year Georgetown Law School students who can expect a median private sector starting salary of $160,000 when they graduate? Or is there some exception to this common sense principle Obama forgot to mention yesterday?

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

AmsterdamExpat

"And so I didn’t feel sorry for myself or any lawyers who took on law school debt." Does this imply that feeling sorry for himself is in fact O’s baseline position? So small his intellect, so great his self-pity.

An inadvertent truth has emerged from O’s mouth! Now how could that be possible … ?

cbenoistd

"Take it easy, I’m in pre-law."

"Thought you’re pre-med."

"What’s the difference?"

section9

Please. Most law school students voted for this guy. Time to reap what they have sewn.

colint

There is a student loan program in Canada. Don’t know the details of it or the US program. Both involve a massive amount of debt that will likely not be repaid. Obama is trying to get young voters for the Democrats by reducing the minimum payments required. Young people taking on this obligation do not think of how it is going to effect them in the future. I expect there are now few like Sarah who worked in her college years to pay her fees.

Sarah might wish to pioneer a major change in the student loan program and requirements for a loan. It should be based upon the students potential to succeed and obtain a job for which there IS a demand for qualified people. The US Tax Code is 60,000 pages (Canada 2,500). If the US tax code, or Health legislation was much briefer and also other laws, would there be a need for fewer (unproductive) lawyers and accountants.

Maybe there should be loans only for education requirements of jobs like doctors, engineers, scientists etc. and no loans for courses like "women’s studies".